[Smart Economics] What If Housework Were Paid?

Is Shin Saimdang Merely a Classical Female Ideal?

When the 50,000 won note was first introduced, there was a rather drawn-out debate over who should appear on it. Since the 50,000 won bill would surpass the 10,000 won bill as the highest denomination, it was argued that the model should be a figure of corresponding stature. But King Sejong and Yi Sun-sin, widely regarded as among the greatest figures in Korean history, were already featured on the 10,000 won note and the 100 won coin. After much discussion, figures such as Kim Gu, Jang Yeong-sil, Gwanggaeto the Great, and Shin Saimdang were mentioned as candidates for the design of the 50,000 won note, and in the end Shin Saimdang was chosen.

This was because criticism from women’s groups—that the figures used on Korean currency had been uniformly “Joseon-era men of the Yi family”—was persuasive. Perhaps because the lineup of figures on Korean banknotes had long been somewhat monotonous, most of the candidates considered for the 50,000 won note, including Shin Saimdang, were notable for not being Joseon-era Yi-family men.

Shin Saimdang became the first woman to appear on Korean currency, but surprisingly, some of the fiercest criticism of her selection also came from certain women’s groups. Their argument was that although Shin Saimdang was certainly an admirable figure, she was emblematic of a feudal-era image of womanhood and therefore not suitable as a modern female role model. Various controversies arose both inside and outside women’s circles, but since Korean history does not exactly abound in female heroes like France’s Joan of Arc or Poland’s Marie Curie, Shin Saimdang was ultimately chosen.

A Full-Time Homemaker Is Also a Proper Occupation

How we view Shin Saimdang is closely tied to how we view housework. Most people probably think that a woman with a job is better off than a homemaker. Men think so, and so do many women. A considerable number of young women are dissatisfied with a society that undervalues domestic labor, yet at the same time they themselves often regard being a homemaker as inferior to having outside employment.

Government employment policy also reflects this perception. Measures such as “returning mom” policies for women whose careers were interrupted by marriage and childbirth are examples. The national budget is limited, and the birthrate is low, so more support could be given directly to women during pregnancy and childrearing. But instead, budgets are allocated to women with interrupted careers because public opinion is more supportive of that approach. Of course, another reason may be the expectation that in the near future our society will face labor shortages due to aging and population decline. The idea is to draw more female labor into the productive workforce.

Judging by today’s social climate, the ideal of the wise mother and good wife seems to have become an antique relic of a bygone age. But is Shin Saimdang really nothing more than a classical female ideal, as some progressive women’s groups claim?

Domestic labor is not traded in the market, so it is not included when employment rates are calculated. As a result, women’s employment rates are usually reported as lower than men’s. But that does not mean women have less influence on social development. Housework is clearly a form of labor that produces value needed by the world. Raising the next generation is one of the current generation’s essential responsibilities. There is absolutely no reason why Shin Saimdang, who raised Yulgok Yi I—a great scholar and statesman representing the Joseon Dynasty—should be considered inferior to a successful modern career woman.

A homemaker is a respectable occupation in its own right, a manager responsible for running a household. If we regard domestic labor as legitimate work, then the low employment rate of women can also be seen as a kind of statistical illusion. Housework creates added value through the process of reproducing labor power within the home in support of a husband working outside it. The only difference is whether the workplace is outside the home or inside it. We commonly distinguish between office-based jobs and field jobs depending on whether the work is done inside or outside the office, but no one thinks office work is less valuable than field work. The work of a homemaker is no different.

Domestic Labor Should Be Viewed from the Perspective of the Social Division of Labor

It is proper to approach office work and field work, and outside employment and domestic labor, from the perspective of a social division of labor. Just as people who are better suited to working outside the office choose field jobs and those better suited to indoor work choose office jobs, a person whose aptitude is better suited to workplace labor works at a job, while a person whose aptitude is better suited to work in the home works in the home.

Domestic labor is indispensable to the survival of both the family and society, which is why it is sometimes shared and sometimes taken on primarily by one person. Of course, domestic labor is by no means the exclusive domain of women, and men too may take primary responsibility for it according to their aptitude.

Even now, people throughout our society seem to be arguing over whether Shin Saimdang is a modern woman or not. But would it not be a more modern attitude to fight against the irrational prejudice that undervalues domestic labor?

▲ Please remember

A homemaker is a respectable occupation in its own right, a manager responsible for running a household. If we regard domestic labor as legitimate work, then the low employment rate of women can also be seen as a kind of statistical illusion. Housework creates added value through the process of reproducing labor power within the home in support of a husband working outside it. The only difference is whether the workplace is outside the home or inside it.

Sung-no Choi, President of the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [스마트 경제 읽기] 집안일에 월급을 준다면?

Author: Sung-no Choi

Date: 2020-10-26

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=6&idx=23190